Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Fresh SuDS guidance 'recognises engineers' role'

The role engineers take in delivering high quality drainage has been recognised by major revisions to guidance on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), according to the body that published it.

The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (Ciria) published the updated SuDS Manual, which is free to download here.

It is said to include the latest research and best practice to enable engineers to deliver sustainable drainage.

Ciria associate Paul Shaffer said: “The SuDS Manual reflects Ciria’s stance that well designed SuDS deliver multiple benefits, as well as manage local flood risk.

“The manual is the cornerstone of Ciria’s work on SuDS that includes the Benefits of SuDS Tool (Best) project; susdrain; Ciria’s SuDS training; and extensive catalogue of SuDS related guidance.

Ciria is also developing future work to improve SuDS construction, planning and assessment, providing the industry with the competence and confidence to embrace SuDS fully.”

Readers' comments (3)

  • There is a growing groundswell of annoyance from experienced Engineering professionals involved in the design and specification of Urban drainage systems at the constant political interference constraining common sense. Whilst the idea of SuDS is indeed common sense, the plethora of contrasting "guidance" "non statutory" standards and removal of engineering from the process is extremely frustrating.
    With the recent moves away from the implementation of Sewers for adoption 7th edition, Mandatory Build Standards and dissolution of SAB's the industry has been left in the hands of renegade Lead Local Flood Authorities who are free to implement whatever design standards and guidance they see fit. In several instances, the design guidance being pushed forward with the support of individuals with little or no engineering experience is having extremely detrimental effects on the delivery of much needed additional housing in areas of extreme need. Whilst the Ciria Suds manual has been largely resigned to the bottom drawer due in large parts to its overbearing reliance on achieving an overall result with a minima of definitive design guidance, it is refreshing to see at least one of a multitude of available documents recognise that this is after all, an engineering discipline. The Engineer, not the politician, planning officer or risk based statistician should be left to get on and do what they have been doing quite effectively for generations.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Karl, I am surprised to see this emotive comment about a key part of the urban system that is essentially there to maintain the health, welfare and promote quality of life for urban dwellers. Sadly (for you) drainage is no longer an out-of-sight-out-of-mind peice of engineering. It is increasingly recognised as a component of the systems of systems required to support society. Even the word 'drainage' is maybe outdated, as all forms of water (including runoff) are increasingly recognised as resources. These will be needed to counter the water stress that will get worse under climate change. I have sympathy with your concerns about LLFAs; although this is as a result of the present administration's failure to commence schedule 3 of the FWMA 2010. Pickles has gone but the deregulation mania remains. What else can LLFAs and LAs do? There are no national standards for England. Notably things are better in Wales and Scotland (although a bit less effective) who are treating surface water in a more enlightened way. Unfortunately, engineers have and are literally costing us the earth - the new sewer tunnel in London will have a far bigger environmental impact than the impacts it will alleviate and in any case be obsolete almost as soon as it is constructed. The tunnel is the result of what you want: the engineer being 'left to get on with it'. Costing my and your children, literally 'the earth'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As an Engineer Richard, I much prefer digging tunnels to remove wastewater (lets not confuse the disposal of foul water with surface water) to the concept of trying to deal with it holistically in a compost bin, reed bed or other such new and improved system. The point being made is not that progress is not a good thing, it is more that political interference - however well intentioned its aims needs to defer to the poor old engineer in respect of the actual means of delivery.
    Using a structural analogy, its much more environmentally friendly to construct a mud hut than a steel framed building. It doesnt necessarily follow that progress = more mud huts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.